URGENT: If You Believe in Homeopathic Therapies for Pets, PLEASE READ THIS

Updated:  A resolution was submitted to the AVMA House of Delegates (HOD) by the Connecticut Veterinary Medical Association, proposing a policy opposing homeopathy. The CT VMA also submitted the white paper as supporting documentation for their resolution. The AVMA itself did NOT generate the resolution or the paper. The AVMA does not endorse the contents of the paper, and only accepted it as a supporting document provided by the organization that submitted the resolution. Any resolution submitted through the proper procedures to the the HOD must be considered – that’s how our governance structure works.
There were representatives from the AHVMA and AHV present at the meeting, and the president of AHVMA addressed the reference committee and shared a number of documents in support of homeopathy with all HOD members.
The vote took place on Saturday, January 5, so there is no need for an email, phone, fax or write-in campaign about the resolution. The House of Delegates voted to refer it to the Executive Board with a request that our Council on Veterinary Service review it. It is no longer a proposed policy or resolution, it’s now an item for consideration that will be given no more or less consideration than other items in the meeting agenda. For more information: http://atwork.avma.org/2013/01/05/proposed-resolution-3-homeopathy-update/

Thank you, Dr. Kimberly May

Story at-a-glance

• It seems the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) is on a fast track to kill off the practice of complementary/alternative/holistic veterinary medicine.
• Fast on the heels of their recent anti-raw pet food position statement, they are now about to jam through a similar resolution discouraging the practice of homeopathy for pets.
• The anti-homeopathy resolution is especially peculiar, since it arrived at the AVMA through a procedural back door and is based solely on an anonymously authored 32-page white paper that displays the stunning bias of the writer along with an abundance of misinformation.
• If you would like not only veterinary homeopathy, but all alternative veterinary therapies to remain available for your pet, we encourage you to contact the AVMA immediately and voice your concerns about this latest resolution, and an overall trend we are seeing toward discouraging the practice of all types of holistic veterinary medicine.

Video: Dr. Becker Interview with Dr. Jean Wofve

By Dr. Becker

Today I have a very special guest, Dr. Jean Hofve. We’re speaking rather urgently via Skype about yet another misguided resolution the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) is putting to a vote this Saturday (yes, tomorrow).

As some of you may recall, the AVMA recently passed a resolution discouraging raw diets for pets. This latest resolution is intended to discourage the use of homeopathy in veterinary medicine.

In case you’re not familiar with Dr. Jean, she’s a retired holistic veterinarian who co-authored The Complete Guide to Holistic Cat Care: An Illustrated Handbook, With Celeste Yarnell. She has also written hundreds of articles, lectured throughout the U.S., and appeared on TV and radio stations around the world. Dr. Jean’s website, Little Big Cat, has a wealth of information on feline health, nutrition and behavior. She currently lives in Denver with four kitties: Flynn, Puzzle, Sundance and Spencer.

Anti-Homeopathy Resolution Slipped in Through the Back Door

Dr. Jean has written a blog post on her website everyone needs to read concerning the proposed AVMA anti-homeopathy resolution.

The AVMA is basing its position solely on a 32-page white paper titled "The Case Against Homeopathy" that states homeopathy is ineffective and its use should be discouraged. According to Dr. Jean’s sources, the white paper was written by a vocal opponent of holistic medicine in all its forms, and was submitted to the AVMA under the sponsorship of the Connecticut Veterinary Medical Association (VMA).

The anti-homeopathy resolution is shocking not only to veterinary homeopaths around the world, but also, hopefully, to every veterinarian in Connecticut, holistic or otherwise. Apparently, the veterinary community in that state was not asked for their input on the resolution!

According to Dr. Jean, the resolution came to the AVMA’s attention through a "weird little procedural back door." It’s Dr. Jean’s understanding that it will be voted on by the AVMA Executive Board on Saturday, and then go to the House of Delegates (HOD). The normal procedure for these resolutions is that they come up through the HOD or standing committees first, and are then referred to the Executive Board. At the annual conference in July, everyone gets an opportunity to talk about them, and they are voted on by the entire House of Delegates. There are over 100 delegates from 50 states and allied associations. They usually go along with the recommendation of the Executive Board.

This is concerning for the precedent it could set in getting AVMA resolutions passed without expert testimony (in this case, the testimony of veterinary homeopaths and other subject experts), and indeed, without the majority of AVMA’s voting membership made aware of proposed resolutions. (Proposed resolutions are published in JAVMA just prior to the conference. I suspect not many vets read them.)

Who, Exactly, is Behind the Resolution?

I asked Dr. Jean to elaborate if possible on just who is behind the anti-homeopathy white paper upon which the AVMA based its resolution. What are this person’s credentials regarding the practice of veterinary homeopathy?

Dr. Jean responded there is one primary driver behind this information, among a small group of "skeptics" who are dedicated to abolishing complementary and alternative veterinary medicine. This individual apparently pushed to bring it to the AVMA for a vote, but while Dr. Jean knows who the person is, she must respect his privacy because he published the white paper anonymously.

Dr. Jean then pointed out, and I certainly agree, that if a person isn’t proud enough of his work to put his name on it, that fact alone should raise red flags for anyone who is using that work as the sole basis for passing such an important resolution.

A white paper is intended to be an unbiased, "just the facts, ma’am" type of document. In this case, it is completely biased and comes only from the anonymous author’s point of view. He cherry-picked the data he used to the point it is essentially meaningless. And as far as Dr. Jean is concerned, the white paper is full of innuendos and attempts to slide around the truth … bending and twisting it every which-way.

What’s really frustrating is this supposedly unbiased white paper is full of biased information, is authored by a person who apparently didn’t feel comfortable putting his name to it, and who did not consult with a single veterinary homeopath or other expert in homeopathy for the purpose of presenting a balanced approach to the topic.

Why Didn’t the AVMA Solicit Input on the Resolution from Veterinary Homeopaths?

Dr. Jean further pointed out that when the AVMA was presented with the anti-homeopathy resolution and the anonymously authored white paper, it could not be bothered to get the other side of the story. Astonishingly, the AVMA didn’t contact either the AHVMA or the AVH (Academy of Veterinary Homeopathy) for input.

(Just so we’re clear, the AVMA is the professional association most DVMs in the U.S. are affiliated with, regardless of their practice philosophy – traditional/conventional, integrative, holistic, etc. Then there’s the American Holistic Veterinary Medical Association (AHVMA), which is for DVMs who also or exclusively practice holistic veterinary medicine. Under the holistic umbrella are various associations for DVMs who practice specific alternative/complementary therapies like homeopathy, chiropractic, acupuncture, Traditional Chinese Medicine, etc.)

Fortunately, and for whatever good it may do, the AHVMA and the AVH were on high alert based on some other things that have gone on recently. So they got wind early of the AVMA anti-homeopathy resolution and were able to respond. (You can find the AHVMA’s response here.) According to Dr. Jean, this has been going on for a month or two behind the scenes, which is why she was able to dig into the white paper, study the so-called "science" behind it, and write her own excellent response, which you can find here.

A Dangerous Trend

The Connecticut VMA has already passed a resolution discouraging the use of homeopathy, and the resolution now sits with the AVMA. I asked Dr. Jean what we can expect if it passes, which we anticipate it will. Where will people seeking professional homeopathic guidance for their pets turn?

Dr. Jean responded that vets who are currently using homeopathy aren’t going to stop, and pet owners who seek it out will still be able to find it. But what the resolution, if passed, will do in a broader sense is give traditional vets an excuse to refuse to even consider homeopathy – because it has now been "proven" (via the AVMA resolution) to be ineffective, or worse. Practitioners who previously knew nothing about homeopathy will now know only false things about homeopathy.

I liken this to the recently passed AVMA resolution against raw pet food diets. For Dr. Jean and I, and all DVMs who understand species-appropriate nutrition, this is just absurd. It’s like banning wolves from hunting rabbits because they could become sick. Since that ill-advised resolution passed, and now this anti-homeopathy resolution seems destined to pass as well, we seem to be on a slippery slope.

Is the AVMA Being Co-opted?

As Dr. Jean sees it, the AVMA is being co-opted by a small group of "anti-everything" people in the veterinary community who want to kill alternative medicine completely. First, raw food diets. Now, homeopathy. Next could be acupuncture, and on and on.

Dr. Jean mentioned that at the last AVMA conference, all the complementary and alternative medicine lectures were turned over to people who do not believe in most or all complementary and alternative therapies, so it does seem as though the AVMA has been taken over. And that’s very concerning, because the AVMA has a lot of influence with veterinary practitioners in every community across the U.S.

So traditional veterinarians up and down Main Street USA who know nothing about alternative therapies are being given "permission" to make judgments against, in this example, raw feeding and homeopathy, based on the professional recommendations of their governing veterinary organizations.

This has the potential to deny veterinary clients and their pets access to therapies that could be preventive or curative. It also has the potential, in a "Big Brother" sort of way, to severely limit the ability of holistic and integrative vets to practice the kind of medicine they wish to practice — and have been trained and certified to practice.

It’s a scary, concerning and frustrating trend. And as Dr. Jean rightfully pointed out, these AVMA resolutions will discourage veterinarians who are interested in learning alternative modalities from pursuing the appropriate training and education. Ultimately, complementary and alternative veterinary medicine could fade away entirely, which is exactly what the "anti-everything" crowd is hoping for.

What You Can Do … TODAY

I asked Dr. Jean what she thinks pet owners who want alternative therapies to remain available should do in light of the recent AVMA resolutions.

She thinks people should contact the AVMA. Public outcry did do a little good in the anti-raw pet food battle, though a revised resolution ultimately passed. Dr. Jean thinks the AVMA would be very surprised to get an earful from pet owners on the proposed anti-homeopathy resolution as well. And she encourages pet owners to tell the AVMA their stories, if applicable, about the benefits their dog, cat or other companion animal has received from alternative therapies.

Contact information for the AVMA is below. Remember that the vote is tomorrow (Saturday, January 5), so if you want to weigh in, you should do it via email, phone or fax right away:

• Email address: avmainfo@avma.org
• Phone number: 800-248-2862
• Fax number: 847-925-1329

Let the AVMA hear from you, their veterinary clients, that you will no longer do business with DVMs who refuse to consider or open their minds to alternative therapies. Let the AVMA know that with these latest resolutions, they are no longer serving clients who want the ability to seek out a variety of healing modalities for their pets. And let them know that ultimately, their members will lose income as pet owners turn to other types of practitioners for their holistic pet care needs.

I would add that it is also very important for those of you who believe in the benefits of alternative veterinary medicine to support your local holistic vet, if you have one in your area.

Dr. Jean also encourages any traditional DVMs who aren’t willing to close the door entirely on all complementary and alternative therapies to contact the AVMA personally and voice your concerns.

With a vote tomorrow, we have very little time to weigh in on the anti-homeopathy resolution, so please take a few minutes right now to email, call or fax a letter to the AVMA and voice your concerns about this latest resolution and what seems to be a dangerous trend toward killing off the practice of holistic veterinary medicine altogether.

My thanks to Dr. Jean Hofve for her time today and for all the work she has done toward trying to defeat both the anti-raw food and now the anti-homeopathy AVMA resolutions.

Technorati Tags: homeopathic pet therapies,hollistic vets,American Veterinary Medical Association,AVMA,Dr. Becker,holistic veterinary medicine,Dr. Jean,Dr. Jean Wofve,alternative veterinary care,stand-up animal lovers,stand-up animal advocates,stand-up pet parents,Big Brother,anti-raw food pet diet resolution,anti-homeopathy AVMA resolution

United Airlines bans transport of certain breeds of dogs

Written By Julie DeVito  -  Published March 29, 2012  -  FoxNews.com  – h/t to MJ

• United Airlines PetSafe program bans nine breeds of dogs, inlcuding Pit Bull Terriers and American Staffordshire Terriers. (AP)

The friendly skies of United Airlines have just gotten a little less friendly for some four-legged creatures.

This month, much to the disappointment of some pet owners, United Airlines confirmed its adoption of the Continental Airlines PetSafe program as the merger of the two carriers became official.

The PetSafe program, which had been in place for several years under Continental, is considered the best in the airline industry and has won an Award for Excellence from the International Pet and Animal Transportation Association.

But not everyone is happy with United’s policy that bans nine dog breeds from planes it considers “dangerous.” Breeds, or mixes, that have reached either 6 months of age or 20 pounds that are prohibited are: Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Presa Canario, Perro de Presa Canario, Dogo Argentino, Cane Corso, Fila Brasileiro, Tosa (or Tosa Ken) and Ca de Bou.

Until the merger, United Airlines didn’t have any restrictions on these breeds.

Mary Ryan, spokeswoman for United, told FoxNews.com that the airline adopted the PetSafe Program because it was an overall superior product. "The PetSafe Program has more resources in place: a 24-hour dedicated desk, transportation for the animals."

But some pet owners say the ban is a discriminatory practice. Jessie Huart says she learned of the ban while trying to book a ticket to travel with her 10-year-old pit bull, Slaw. She started a petition at Change.org to encourage airline officials to remove the breed restriction in their dangerous dog policy.

“These types of policies are opposed by every major dog-related organization. The American Veterinary Medical Association and the National Animal Control Association argue that physical appearance isn’t an effective way to predict or address aggression,” the petition site says.

The airline’s policy was recently revised to eliminate the phrase "dangerous breeds," but the ban remains.

Another change in United policy was that the airline classified pets traveling in the cargo hold as cargo rather than checked luggage. That became a problem for some traveling with pets from certain countries, especially overseas American military families who were facing potentially large third-party freight fees.

Last week, under mounting pressure, United eased restrictions. "Because we share our customers’ concern that their pets’ flights are stress-free, we have enhanced our animal acceptance policy to transport pets as both baggage (accompanying a passenger on the same plane) and cargo,” it states on its website.

Dr. Jessica Vogelsang, of Paw Curious.com, told FoxNews.com that although United is the only airline that has a ban on certain breeds, all airlines reserve the right to turn away a dog on an individual basis if he or she appears ill or aggressive.

“The American Veterinary Medical Association, the CDC, the ASPCA and the HSUS all agree that the visual appearance of a dog has no correlation to its propensity to display aggression.” Vogelsang told FoxNews.com. “I am fine with an airline making policy decisions based on evidence that are meant to keep the pet safe, but adamantly opposed to policies based on assumptions and fear that do nothing to help the pet or the owner. It certainly has nothing to do with the fact that these so called "dangerous" breeds are themselves more at risk when they travel.”

Traveling by air with animals, especially unique breeds, has never been easy. So what other options do you have with other airlines?

American Airlines, Delta Airlines, Alaska Airlines and Northwest Airlines do not have any restrictions against specific breeds. Southwest and America West/US Airlines both will not ship live animals, but they will accept legitimate service dogs inside the cabin.

Melanie Monteiro, a dog safety expert and author of the “Safe Dog Handbook,” says no matter what your dog’s breed, travelers should keep in mind a few basics.

1.Your dog must be deemed in peak health by his/her vet prior to any flight. Underlying medical conditions are one of the leading causes of air travel-related illness or death in pets. The airline’s required veterinary health certificate will cover this.

2.Short-nosed breeds (i.e., boxers, bulldogs, pugs, bull mastiffs) are prone to respiratory problems and should not fly below cabin. Overweight and elderly dogs are also at risk.

3. Check kennel size and weight restrictions (which is the combined weight of the pet, PLUS the carrier) for your particular airline.

4. Ensure your pet’s kennel is in top condition with no loose latches. The kennel must be large enough for your pet to stand up, turn around and lay down in.

5. Allow extra time for check in when traveling with pets, and ensure your dog has had a nice long walk before the flight.

As far as booking a tough breed on United or any other carrier, pet owners are advised to always call the airlines first.

Transporting Pets:
If you want to transport your dog or cat by air, Pet Airways is the safest way to fly your pet. Pets traveling on Pet Airways fly in the main cabin of our aircraft. Pets are continuously watched over by our On-Board Pet Attendants. Our Pet Lounges are pet–friendly, of course, and all our team are pet professionals.

Whether you are shipping a dog that has been rescued, need to move your dog to another city, flying your new puppy home, or just want to vacation with your cat or travel with your dog, Pet Airways is dedicated to making pet transportation safe and comfortable for your pet.

Better Alternative: Check out Pet Airways – http://www.petairways.com/

How to Transport a Pet by Air
There are 4 ways to ship a pet:

• Fly with your pet. If your pet is small and under 20lbs, you can fly with your pet by putting it under your seat. If your pet is too large, your pet flies in cargo hold.
• Ship your pet, just like you ship a package. You take your pet to the cargo department of the airline, and your dog or cat are transported just just like they transport all their packages, in the cargo hold.
• Hire a Pet Shipper. Pet Shippers provide the convenience of taking and picking up your pet from the cargo department of the airlines. Your pet flies in the cargo hold.
• Transport your pet with Pet Airways the one and only pet airline. Our pets are "pawsengers" and we treat them with TLC throughout the pet travel experience.

So, if you are travelling with your dog, moving with your cat across the country, taking a vacation with your pet, transporting a pet to grandma for a visit, Pet Airways is the pet-only airline, where the pet safety is our most important job. All we do is fly pets, safely.

 

Video:  Travel on Pet Airways – "How it Works"

Better Alternative: Check out Pet Airways  -  http://www.petairways.com/

And if all else fails… Consider a driving trip!!

Related:

• New Pet Airline – Airline Just For Pets Takes Off
• Jet Blue Introduces JetPaws Program
• Airports Offer Relief for You and Your Pet

Resources:

Traveling With Dogs

The Portable petswelcome.com

Traveling With Your Pet  -  AAA Publishing

Ask Marion at Just One More Pet

Taking Away More Liberties: WI Pet Ordinance Forces Homeowners to Choose — Your Pet or Your House

Posted on March 15, 2012 at 5:03pm by Tiffany Gabbay to the Blaze

In a push many see as a gross infringement on one’s personal liberties, a small Wisconsin town is forcing homeowners who keep more than the town’s “permitted” allotment of pets a choice: Give up your animals, or give up your house.

James and Melissa Lecker take their dogs for a walk near their Wausau, Wis., home.

This is the dilemma currently being faced by one couple — James and Melissa Lecker — who, unbeknownst to them, moved to Wausau with four dogs.

For Melissa, there was no “choice.”

“These dogs are our family. They’re like our children,” she said.

In Wausau, homeowners are not permitted to have more than three cats, gerbils and rabbits or two dogs.

Melissa told Fox News she was in disbelief when a police officer showed up to her door to inform her that she was subject to a $100 per day fine for being over her dog “limit.”

“I had never heard of anything like that,” she said.

“They told us that the ordinance clearly states they [City council] cannot work with us… that it’s either two dogs or that you have to move, as you can’t have four dogs here.”

Meanwhile, the town’s officials said their hands are tied as the “ordinance doesn’t allow for variance.”

According to Fox, Jeff Gold, a municipal attorney from New Jersey, said the law makes sense when it comes to dogs:

“They smell. They bark. They have excrement,” said Gold.

“You’re not punishing [the Leckers], he explains. “You’re regulating society.” Wow!!  Progressive alert!

No one from Wausau, including Mayor James Tipple returned reporters calls for comment.

Melissa says she has put her house on the market and is prepared to take a $15,000 loss in order to keep her dogs.

“I hope we can work something out,” she told Fox. “But they are just being so mean. My dogs didn’t bother anyone.”

Watch the report HERE, courtesy of Fox

I too would fight for my pups and would take a $15,000 loss on my house.  Pets are part of your family… They are forever!  Good for James and Melissa Lecker.

These ordinances will become more and more prevalent if we do not stand-up.  They already are in towns, cities, and states with large Progressive populations like California and primarily San Francisco (who tell you who, what kind and how many), New York, large pockets of Wisconsin and the list goes on.  They are also prevalent Internationally, from China to Europe and even pockets of New Zealand, a wide open country where there are more sheep than people. Progressives hope to regulate every moment and action of everyone’s life for their idea of “the greater good”.  Every single day we are losing rights and liberties.  Time to take a stand for pets, for parental rights (of two and 4 legged kids), for individual liberties, for the inalienable rights we are all entitled to in all circumstances.

The Lecker’s situation is not an isolated case by any means.  I was personally involved in a situation in Leisure World in CA where they changed their restriction to 1 cat or 1 dog per unit (ridiculous in a community where pets are sometimes the only friends and love its residents have).  An elderly lady living there had promised her friend and neighbor that she would take her dog if anything ever happened to her because she had no family.  Right before her friend’s death LW initiated a policy of 1 pet and left a poor dying woman to fret over her beloved pet and companion in her last hours and then left her elderly friend in a position to either sell or rent out her home in Leisure World and move to keep her word and take care of her friend’s dog or try to find a home for the pup before it had to go to the shelter or rescue and probably be put down (senior dogs are hard to place).

Nobody is advocating hoarding (which is an illness and wouldn’t be stopped by laws) but good pet parents can and should be allowed to have 4 or 5 dogs, especially if they own a house, or a combination of 6 dogs and cats plus a bird, gerbils, turtles, fish etc.  Each case should be an individual matter and should only be of concern if there is a problem.  And then it should be based on ability to care for the pets in question and the circumstances.  For some people 1 pet is too much.  For most people 2 to 4 are plenty but for some 6 to 10 are perfect.  I have been to people’s houses that only have one pet (or one baby) and you can smell the litter box or diapers the second you walk in and there is a mess or fur/feathers (or dust) on the furniture. I have several friends with between 4 to 8 pets whose houses are no different than the ‘average house’; with either no pets, just kids or a just a couple of each.  And on the extreme, I had an acquaintance that was a vet tech and worked for the local vet that took in strays and hardship cases who had 23 pets, and probably fostered another 100 until permanent homes could be found, and her house was immaculate.  Today it is pets, tomorrow it will be children, activities, food, where you can live, what you can drive, how many vehicles you can own and the list will go on endlessly unless we stand up!

Our shelters are over-flowing because of the tough economic times added to by limit laws like in Wausau.  Everyone who can and wants to should be able to adopt just one or two more pets instead of continuing the flood of euthanization.

Please help the Leckers take a stand by calling, emailing and writing the City Council of Wausau as well as the Chamber of Commerce, Marathon County and state offices of Wisconsin.  I would suggest a call to Jeff Gold, the municipal attorney from New Jersey.  Today Wausau, tomorrow your town… your state… your neighborhood.

I care not for a man’s religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it." -Abraham Lincoln

Related:

STOP Los Angeles and Other Major Cities from Unreasonable Pet Limit Laws and Restrictions

Southfield Implements Limit on Cats – Over Reaction!

Pet-Limit Laws Unconstitutional

Massachusetts Town Puts Limits on Cat Ownership

Adopt Just One More…MV Temporarily Reduced Adoption Fees

And here we thought Chicago’s attempt to pass a five-dog limit was controversial!

Shocking Report…Gov’t to decide what pets you can own – Episode 006

Adopt Just One More Pet… MV Shelter Reduces Cat and Kitten Adoption Fees Until Sept 27th – Good Job MV!

Homeless With Pets… Choosing Pets Over Shelter

Is Your Pet a Voiceless Victim of the Tanking Economy?

Chinese City’s “One Dog” Policy Has Residents Howling

Florida’s Idea of Cat Population Control

Humane Society list of pet financial aid-related organizations

Where there is a will…

Declaration of the No Kill Movement in the United States

This is in America: No Mercy: Calf Farm Cruelty Exposed We Are Still Euthanizing 4 Million Dogs Plus Additional Pets in Shelters in America Every Year… And We Allow the Murder of 3,700 Unborn Human Babies Per Day Through Abortion

Again, please help the Leckers take a stand by calling, emailing and writing the City Council of Wausau as well as the Chamber of Commerce, Marathon County and state offices of Wisconsin. I would suggest a call to Jeff Gold, the Progressive municipal attorney from New Jersey as well. Today Wausau, tomorrow your town… your state… your neighborhood.

San Francisco City Gov Bans Pet Fish? Hello?

First the bay city decided we American’s just shouldn’t be able to decide matters such as circumcision.

We shouldn’t have to worry about decisions like that since we have a brilliant and all knowing government to think for us.

Now San Francisco is taking things a step further by possibly relieving the American’s that live within its limits of the terrible right to purchase a pet goldfish.

San Francisco’s Animal Control and Welfare Commission is recommending that the City ban the sale of goldfish, tropical fish and guppies in its borders, according to Matier and Ross.

The recommendation to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is part of the commission’s ongoing efforts to discourage “impulse buys” of animals.

The commission’s ban would cover pet stores and breeders in the City. It comes after more than a year of study and findings that aquarium fish are often mass bred under inhumane conditions or stripped from the wild.

It almost seems as if these idiots read Atlas Shrugs and instead of learning lessons from it, they got ideas.

I mean, San Francisco has managed to chase off most parents with children, cutting off future generations of workers, business and tax dollars. They kicked a medical industry to the curb and now Pet Smart and many other pet stores are likely to notice little value of sticking around.

Good going liberals… way to succeed as a city.

-Eric Odom

Source: Eric Dom

Related:

STOP Los Angeles and Other Major Cities from Unreasonable Pet Limit Laws and Restrictions

Southfield Implements Limit on Cats – Over Reaction!

Pet-Limit Laws Unconstitutional

Massachusetts Town Puts Limits on Cat Ownership

Adopt Just One More…MV Temporarily Reduced Adoption Fees

And here we thought Chicago’s attempt to pass a five-dog limit was controversial!

Homeless With Pets… Choosing Pets Over Shelter

Is Your Pet a Voiceless Victim of the Tanking Economy?

Chinese City’s “One Dog” Policy Has Residents Howling

Florida’s Idea of Cat Population Control

Humane Society list of pet financial aid-related organizations

Where there is a will…

I care not for a man’s religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it." -Abraham Lincoln

First The Greenies Want Us to Eat Our Dogs… Now the Academics Say It Is Insulting to Call Them Pets

ACADEMICS: CALLING ANIMALS ‘PETS’ IS INSULTING

Last week for Earth Day the Disciples of Global Warming re-cycled their campaign to Eat the Family Pet to reduce our carbon footprint.

Domestic dogs, cats, hamsters or budgerigars [birds] should be rebranded as “companion animals” while owners should be known as “human carers”, they insist.  Even terms such as wildlife are dismissed as insulting to the animals concerned – who should instead be known as “free-living”, the academics including an Oxford professor suggest.

The call comes from the editors of then Journal of Animal Ethics, a new academic publication devoted to the issue. …

In its first editorial, the journal – jointly published by Prof Linzey’s centre and the University of Illinois in the US – condemns the use of terms such as ”critters” and “beasts”.  It argues that “derogatory” language about animals can affect the way that they are treated.

“Despite its prevalence, ‘pets’ is surely a derogatory term both of the animals concerned and their human carers,” the editorial claims.  “Again the word ‘owners’, whilst technically correct in law, harks back to a previous age when animals were regarded as just that: property, machines or things to use without moral constraint.”

It goes on: “We invite authors to use the words ‘free-living’, ‘free-ranging’ or ‘free-roaming’ rather than ‘wild animals’

“For most, ‘wildness’ is synonymous with uncivilized, unrestrained, barbarous existence.

“There is an obvious prejudgment here that should be avoided.”  [h/t WeaselZippers / the Blaze]

Personally I prefer to think of my pets as ‘furkids’ and part of the family to love, not as property.  They add much more to my life than the so-called care-giving I do for them could be counted as a burden.  I don’t mind doing for them as I don’t for any family member and believe they deserve fair treatment and love.  As of insulting them if they are called pets… doubt they’d notice. But as for eating them or euthanizing them for global warming… not a chance!

Perhaps these academics might want to put themselves to work fighting some of the real anti-pet, anti-animal, animal cruelty issues??  What a concept.  Here are a few if they can’t find any:

The Latest Enemies of Iran: Dogs and Their Owners

No Mercy:  Calf Farm Cruelty Exposed

Greenies Gone Wild Again… for Earth Day  -  Back to Americans Doing More, Including Eating Our Dogs

China, Korea and many other nations are still eating dogs and cats:

STOP KILLING DOGS! 2 Million Dogs Killed in Horrible Ways Every Year in South Korea

Olympic Clean-up Chinese Style:  Beijing’s Shocking Cat Death Camps

And how about the fact that we in the United States we are Still Euthanizing 4 Million Dogs Plus Additional Pets in Shelters in America Every Year because of don’t have a good system. We base rules on lobbies or making money and we restrict people in far too many communities to one or two pets.  No one is promoting hoarding, but 3 to 6 pets are the right number for some people, one is too many for others and abuses need to be addressed on an individual bases.  We also allow vets to over-charge for spay and neutering procedures and demonize private breeders and people who choose to let their pet have a litter but too often look the other way when it comes to puppy and kitten mills and the pet stores who buy and sell the the ‘mill’s animals.  Join the “NO KILL Movement” and report all abuse and neglect, against animals and humans.

Related:

UN Document: Mother Earth Has Same Rights as Humans

Protect Innocent Animals; Make Bestiality a Felony

Gov’t to Decide What Pets You Can Own

The Latest Enemies of Iran: Dogs and Their Owners

The Latest Enemies of Iran: Dogs and Their Owners – Fighting Shariah By Azadeh Moaveni

“Iranian officials find themselves in a cultural war with the West and see what they’re offering as an ‘Islamic lifestyle’ failing measurably.” For much of the past decade, the Iranian government has tolerated what it considers a particularly depraved and un-Islamic vice: the keeping of pet dogs. During periodic crackdowns, police have confiscated dogs from their owners right off the street; and state media has lectured Iranians on the diseases spread by canines. The cleric Gholamreza Hassani, from the city of Urmia, has been satirized for his sermons railing against "short-legged" and "holdable" dogs. But as with the policing of many other practices (like imbibing alcoholic drinks) that are deemed impure by the mullahs but perfectly fine to many Iranians, the state has eventually relaxed and let dog lovers be. Those days of tacit acceptance may soon be over, however. Lawmakers in Tehran have recently proposed a bill in parliament that would criminalize dog ownership, formally enshrining its punishment within the country’s Islamic penal code. The bill warns that that in addition to posing public health hazards, the popularity of dog ownership "also poses a cultural problem, a blind imitation of the vulgar culture of the West." The proposed legislation for the first time outlines specific punishments for "the walking and keeping" of "impure and dangerous animals," a definition that could feasibly include cats but for the time being seems targeted at dogs. The law would see the offending animal confiscated, the leveling of a $100-to-$500 fine on the owner, but leaves the fate of confiscated dogs uncertain. "Considering the several thousand dogs [that are kept] in Tehran alone, the problem arises as to what is going to happen to these animals," Hooman Malekpour, a veterinarian in Tehran, said to the BBC’s Persian service. If passed, the law would ultimately energize police and volunteer militias to enforce the ban systematically. In past years, animal-rights activists in Iran have persuasively argued that sporadic campaigns against dog ownership are politically motivated and unlawful, since the prohibition surfaces in neither the country’s civil laws nor its Islamic criminal codes. But if Iran’s laws were silent for decades on the question of dogs, that is because the animals — in the capacity of pet — were as irrelevant to daily life as dinosaurs. Islam, by custom, considers dogs najes, or unclean, and for the past century cultural mores kept dog ownership down to minuscule numbers. In rural areas, dogs have traditionally aided shepherds and farmers, but as Iranians got urbanized in the past century, their dogs did not come along. In cities, aristocrats kept dogs for hunting and French-speaking dowagers kept lap dogs for company, but the vast majority of traditional Iranians, following the advice of the clergy, were leery of dogs and considered them best avoided. That has changed in the past 15 years with the rise of an urban middle class plugged into and eager to mimic Western culture. Satellite television and Western movies opened up a world where happy children frolicked with dogs in parks and affluent families treated them like adorable children. These days, lap dogs rival designer sunglasses as the upper-middle-class Iranian’s accessory of choice. "Global norms and values capture the heart of people all around the world, and Iran is no exception," says Omid Memarian, a prominent Iranian journalist specializing in human rights. "This is very frightening for Iranian officials, who find themselves in a cultural war with the West and see what they’re offering as an ‘Islamic lifestyle’ failing measurably." The widening acceptability of dog ownership, and its popularity among a specific slice of Iran’s population — young, urban, educated and frustrated with the Islamic government — partly explains why dogs are now generating more official hostility. In 2007, two years into the tenure of hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, security forces targeted dog owners alongside a crackdown on women’s attire and men’s "Westernized" hairstyles. In the regime’s eyes, owning a dog had become on par with wearing capri pants or sporting a mullet — a rebellious act. The government’s tolerance for this low-level lifestyle dissidence fizzled after Ahmadinejad’s contested electoral victory in 2009, which sparked massive demonstrations and the most serious challenge to Islamic rule since the 1979 revolution. In the aftermath of that upheaval, the state has moved to tighten its control over a wide range of Iranians’ private activities, from establishing NGOs to accessing the Internet, to individual lifestyle decisions, according to Hadi Ghaemi, the director for the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran. "No doubt such attempts are motivated by a desire to squash acts of criticism and protests, even if through symbolic individual decisions that simply don’t conform to officially sanctioned lifestyles," Ghaemi says. The criminalizing of dogs, in this context, helps the government address the legal gray areas concerning lifestyle behavior. When authorities found it difficult to police what it termed Westernized hairstyles worn by young men, it solved the problem last year by releasing a poster of specifically banned styles. For many young people, these measures are a firm reminder that the government will brook no disobedience, whether it be chanting antigovernment slogans in the streets or sporting excessively long sideburns. Dog owners in Iran, like much of the population, are mostly preoccupied these days with inflation, joblessness and the parlous state of the country’s economy. But they will soon need to consider whether keeping their shih tzu or poodle is worth the added worry. Their dogs may face the same fate as the hundreds of street dogs that the government regularly sweeps from the streets of Tehran. "Many in Tehran and other big cities find the killing of street dogs offensive and cruel," says Memarian. "It’s like the Iranian people and officials live in two different worlds." Source:  Time Magazine Related:  Dog/Pet Ownership Under Attack… Stand Up Now and Help! Dogs… Pets – Beyond Traditional Islam Man’s Best Friend in Shariah’s Cruel Crosshairs And then there are the Fanatical “Green People”… Greenies Gone Wild Again… for Earth Day  -  Back to Americans Doing More, Including Eating Our Dogs Ditch Your Family Pet to Save the Planet… I think NOT!! “The greatness of a nation, a people, and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated!” …Mahatma Gandhi And When You Look at the Pet and Animal Abuse and Cruelty Around the World… Including in the United States… You Wonder if We Have Made Any Progress at All This is in America:  No Mercy:  Calf Farm Cruelty Exposed Plus We Are Still Euthanizing 4 Million Dogs Plus Additional Pets in Shelters in America Every Year…  Join the No Kill Movement and Become Part of the Solution.  There is a Better Way!

The earth is flat, pet overpopulation exists and other myths we’ve been told

For years, most people in the United States have been told that that there are “too many pets and not enough homes”.  We have been told that there is a pet “overpopulation” problem.  We have been told that the reason that America’s animal shelters are killing millions of pets every year is because of this “overpopulation”.   We’ve heard this over and over and we have accepted this as truth without question.

Until a few years ago, I too believed that there was a pet overpopulation problem.  After all, I have seen the large numbers of animals at shelters, and who would believe that an animal shelter would kill thousands of animals every year if there actually were enough homes for all of them?  The caring and rational people who work at animal shelters would not do such a thing……. would they?

The truth is that pet “overpopulation” is actually a myth.  It does not exist.  I know this sounds heretical to many people especially to those who have fostered many animals, or to the people who watch animals being killed by the thousands at shelters every year. The first time that I read that pet overpopulation was a myth on a book cover, I thought it was crazy.  I am sure that people felt the same way the first time someone suggested that the earth might actually be round, not flat.  It is hard to change our belief system when we’ve been taught one thing our entire lives.  But, people finally realized that the earth really was not flat after all, that people were not sailing off the edge of the earth and people will soon realize that pet overpopulation is a myth as well.

But, let’s look at the numbers to make some sense of what the true facts are.   According to a national study done by Maddie’s Fund and the Humane Society of the United States, 23.5 million people in the US will get a new pet each year.  Some of those people have already decided where they will get that pet i.e.  they will adopt from a shelter, go to a breeder or get a pet from free to good home ad etc.   However, 17 million of those people have not yet decided where they will get their new pet.  So these “undecideds” are the homes that are up for grabs.  These 17 million people could be convinced to adopt.*

Today, between 3 and 4 million animals are being killed in “shelters”.   So it’s pretty clear that the “demand” for pets each year (17 million) far outnumbers the “supply” of animals being killed in shelters (3-4 million).

And the supply of adoptable shelter pets each year is actually even less because a large portion of that 3-4 million being killed are actually lost pets that should be reunited with their owners.   For example, Washoe Co., NV animal control returns 65% of pets to their owners.  Conversely, most shelters in the US average a return of only about 5%.  If Houston’s animal control i.e. BARC would utilized the same Return to Owner program as Washoe Co. with the same success, it would save the lives 8,100 more animals every year; that’s 8,100 animals that BARC would not need to adopt out or put in foster care and 8,100 empty kennels for the animals that truly are homeless.  It is also a savings of $972,000 every year which could then be directed to programs like free spay/neuter or a Help Desk to keep animals from being relinquished by their owners.

In addition, that 3-4 million “supply” could be further reduced if all shelters TNR’d (trap, neuter, released) feral cats instead of killing all of them, as many shelters do.

That 3-4 million “supply” could be reduced further still if shelters had pet retention programs that kept many of those animals out of the shelter in the first place, as mentioned above.

So we can see that adopting out all animals entering shelters is doable.  And the fact is that it is already being done in many communities.  If pet overpopulation really existed, there would be no open admission, No Kill shelters.  They could not exist. But, they do exist.

So let’s break these numbers down and get a perspective on what it means for Houston.

According to the U.S. census, there are 310,895,000+ people in the U.S.  As we discussed above, 17 million people who will get a new pet each year, have not yet decided where they will get that pet.  Those “undecided” new pet owners equal about 5.4% of the U.S. population.

The latest census shows that Houston has just under 2.2 million people.  The “undecided” new pet owners in Houston would equal about 118,800 people.  That is 118,800 people who could be convinced to adopt their next pet.

We also know that approximately 80,000 pets are being killed in Houston’s five kill shelters each year.   Again, we can see that the “demand” for pets by the “undecideds” in Houston (118,800) far outnumbers the “supply” of pets being killed in Houston’s shelters (80,000).

This means that there is no pet “overpopulation”.  It just means that the 80,000 pets being killed in Houston shelters each year could be saved if they were better introduced to the people who would be willing to adopt them.

And the numbers above are a worst case scenario because again this does not take into consideration the feral cats that should be TNR’d; it doesn’t take into consideration the number of pets that “should” be returned to their owners but who are not (see above); it does not take into consideration the number of animals that could be kept out of the shelter entirely with a proactive “help desk”.

I’m not saying that there aren’t a lot of pets entering Houston’s shelters each year.  Of course there are.  And I’m not saying that there aren’t irresponsible people in Houston.  Of course there are.  I am saying that just because 80,000 pets are being killed in Houston shelters each year does not equate to “too many pets and not enough homes”.  The numbers prove that this is false.  It is myth and propaganda perpetuated by kill shelters.

I’m also not saying it is easy to save all healthy and treatable pets entering shelters.  To the contrary, it is hard work.  But therein lies the true heart of problem ….. saving all healthy and treatable pets is hard work and most shelter directors in the U.S. still refuse to do everything necessary to save them.  Continuing on the same path of “save a few and kill the rest” is easier.  Continuing to blame the public for pet “overpopulation” is easier.

So while I will admit there is an overpopulation problem, it is not a pet overpopulation problem.  The problem is an overpopulation of ineffective shelter directors who refuse to join the 21st century and put into place the programs and services that we know will save all healthy and treatable pets.

That overpopulation problem could be solved fairly quickly…. with a pink slip.

*****************************************************************************************************************************************************

If you would like to learn how every shelter can transform themselves into No Kill shelters, please join us at our Building a No Kill Community workshop on April 30th.   Learn how we can stop the killing in our shelters.

Stay up to date on this topic and others by receiving No Kill Houston’s e-newsletter.

To receive an email notice each time I post a new article on Examiner.com, click the “Subscribe” button at the top of this page.

Become a fan of No Kill Houston and No Kill Texas on Facebook.

Follow No Kill Houston on Twitter.

Continue reading on Examiner.com: The earth is flat, pet overpopulation exists and other myths we’ve been told – Houston animal shelters | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/animal-shelters-in-houston/the-earth-is-flat-pet-overpopulation-exists-and-other-myths-we-ve-been-told#ixzz1FIiv7ENF

Source: Bett Sundermeyer – Houston Examiner  – Reposted:  Just One More Pet

A PET’S TEN COMMANDMENTS…

A PET’S TEN COMMANDMENTS…

1. My life is likely to last 10-15 years. Any separation from you is likely to be painful.

2. Give me time to understand what you want of me.

3. Place your trust in me. It is crucial for my well-being.

4. Don’t be angry with me for long and don’t lock me up as punishment. You have your work, your friends, your entertainment, but I have only you.

5. Talk to me. Even if I don’t understand your words, I do understand your voice when speaking to me.

6. Be aware that however you treat me, I will never forget it.

7. Before you hit me, before you strike me, remember that I could hurt you, and yet, I choose not to bite you.

8. Before you scold me for being lazy or uncooperative, ask yourself if something might be bothering me. Perhaps I’m not getting the right food, I have been in the sun too long, or my heart might be getting old or weak.

9. Please take care of me when I grow old. You too, will grow old.

10 On the ultimate difficult journey, go with me please. Never say you can’t bear to watch. Don’t make me face this alone. Everything is easier for me if you are there, because I love you so.

Life would be a much duller, less joyful experience without God’s critters.

There are many people who are finding themselves in the difficult place of having to give up their pets to foster care, adoption to drop them off at a shelter.

Sadly there aren’t enough fosters and not enough people have stopped to consider adopting just one more pet, temporarily take in a friend or family members’ pets who are in need, or have stepped up to demand that some of the ton of stimulus money we have spent and wasted be used for pets and animals to make sure that all facilities are humane and “NO KILL” facilities.  There should also be shelters for families that include accommodations for their pets.  Imagine losing your income, your home and often your transporation and then also having to give up a member of your family, just because they have 4-legs, feathers, or scales… especially if you are a child.

For the amount of money that Michelle Obama spent just on her Spain trip, let alone the ridiculous amounts spent on “extras” for the unsuccessful  trip to India, Indonesia and South Korea, virtually every pet/animal  facility in America could have been updated, enlarged and supplemented to stop the unnecessary killing that goes on daily all over America… and it would have created a heck of a lot of both temporary and permanent jobs!

Save a life and increase the love in yours by adopting or fostering just one more pet for the holidays or help a needy family keep their pets.

Man’s Best Friend in Shariah’s Cruel Crosshairs

Islamic Shariah law is utterly and completely incompatible with western civilization and should remain confined the retrograde Middle East areas which embrace it, on Friday Iran outlawed all advertisements for pets, pet food, pet shops and all pet products.

Back in June, Reuters reported that a fatwa, or Islamic religious decree, had been issued in Iran denouncing pet dog and cat ownership.

This hatred for dogs is just part of Islamic Shariah law, and it will never fit in with the West.

(snip)

They hate the West. They hate Christianity. They hate Jews. They hate “infidels.” Yet here they are spreading their tentacles throughout our country, just as they have done in Europe. The children of Ishmael are now poised to erect a monster victory mosque and “cultural” center at Ground Zero.

. . . . Check out article , and # 4.

Man’s Best Friend in Shariah’s Cruel Crosshairs

In just one more example of how Islamic Shariah law is utterly and completely incompatible with western civilization and should remain confined the retrograde Middle East areas which embrace it, on Friday Iran outlawed all advertisements for pets, pet food, pet shops and all pet products.

Back in June, Reuters reported that a fatwa, or Islamic religious decree, had been issued in Iran denouncing pet dog and cat ownership. The edict was announced by Iran’s Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance and is based on the fatwa by 86-year-old Grand Ayatollah Nasser Makarem Shirazi, who claims that people’s love for their dogs and cats may lead to “evil outcomes.” Shirazi singled out dogs in particular, declaring them to be “unclean” under Shariah law.

He denounced Iranian dog owners for “blindly imitating the West.” He said, “Many people in the West love their dogs more than their wives and children.” Oh, like how the Islamists love their wives and children so much that they use them as human shields and suicide bombers? Nothing says “I love you” like a brand-new suicide bomb vest on your teenager, or your husband’s fist hitting your face as he heads off to spend the night with one of his other wives, or your husband stoning you to death for “dishonoring” the family.

Of the declaration that dogs are unclean, Robert Spencer reporting in Jihad Watch says,

“Of course, so did the prophet of Islam: ‘Ibn Mughaffal reported: The Messenger of Allah… ordered killing of the dogs, and then said: What about them, i.e. about other dogs? And then granted concession (to keep) the dog for hunting and the dog for (the security) of the herd, and said: When the dog licks the utensil, wash it seven times, and rub it with earth the eighth time.’–Sahih Muslim 551″

Apparently dish soap is highly overrated by those of us in the West. There’s nothing like good old dirt to get the “unclean” out!

This hatred for dogs is just part of Islamic Shariah law, and it will never fit in with the West. As Robert Spencer points out, this goes back to Muhammad’s opinions. We have seen examples of this here in America, where Muslim cab drivers refuse to pick up people who have dogs with them, even service dogs for the disabled. That’s a violation of American law. It is illegal to deny access to a disabled person with a service dog. It’s not a matter of the Muslim cabbie being worried that the dog will “mess” in the cab–it’s part of his twisted Shariah law, and in the case of this elderly Islamic leader, Shirazi, the root of his disdain for dogs is his hatred for the West, which is common among Islamists.

They hate the West. They hate Christianity. They hate Jews. They hate “infidels.” Yet here they are spreading their tentacles throughout our country, just as they have done in Europe. The children of Ishmael are now poised to erect a monster victory mosque and “cultural” center at Ground Zero. If it were to be built, I wonder if dogs would be permitted inside–in the spirit of “interfaith dialogue,” of course!

I feel sorry for the Muslim people who live under this retrograde regime in Iran, and those in other Muslim-dominated countries, and I feel bad for the dogs and cats there, as well. How can you trust someone who hates dogs or cats? I don’t trust such a person or his judgment. Dogs and cats are precious creatures that bring so much joy to our lives. Yes, dogs need to be bathed, and a weekly shampoo wash and rinse does wonders for the “unclean” doggie. Cats are self-cleaning, which is quite handy. God gave us these friend animals for our happiness, and there is no earthly loyalty like what they give us. I think of all the lonely people who may count among their few friends their cat or dog.

To some, this may seem like a small issue–the banning of all things pet in Iran–but it further illustrates the diametrical difference between Shariah law and the laws and civilization of the West. They do not mix, and they cannot be made to coexist without completely undoing our Constitution and culture. We must fight against the spread of the virulent ideology of Islamic Shariah law, which is slowly creeping into our country. It’s the same Shariah law, whether it’s in Iran or the Ground Zero Mosque.

Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 10:32:26 AM by scottfactor

Sources:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2580703/posts

http://scottfactor.com/conservative_blog/mans-best-friend-in-shariahs-cruel-crosshairs/

Fur and Feathers Fly As San Francisco Weighs Pet Sales Ban

What began as a proposal to ban sales of dogs and cats quickly grew to include birds, hamsters, rats and other small mammals. Shelters and rescue groups could still offer adoptions…

Jennifer Grafelman, general manager of the Animal Connection pet store in San Francisco, displays a fuzzy chinchilla. She and others are fighting a proposal that would ban sales of any animal with fur or feathers. (Bob Chamberlin / Los Angeles Times / July 23, 2010)

By Maria L. La Ganga, Los Angeles Times  -  July 25, 2010 | 8:54 p.m.

Reporting from San Francisco —

Here in the land of animal companions and their faithful guardians — do not call them pets and owners — a battle is raging over just what it means to be creature-friendly.

In true San Francisco fashion, city officials are considering a ban on sales of almost all pets. If the prohibition passes, it would mean no cats for sale here, no dogs, no hamsters, no rats, no guinea pigs, no macaws, no parakeets, no cockatiels, no finches. If Junior wanted a snake, Mom could probably still buy him one within the city’s precious 47 square miles. But forget about those mice for Drago’s dinner.

The proposal started out small: prohibit commerce in cats and dogs as a way to discourage puppy mills and kitten factories. South Lake Tahoe and West Hollywood passed such laws within the last 18 months; in Texas, Austin and El Paso are considering similar ones.

But this being San Francisco, the discussion didn’t stop there.

After multiple meetings of the Animal Control & Welfare Commission and hours of impassioned testimony — peppered with the word “symbolic” — the narrow proposition blossomed to include most creatures great and small. The commission is set to vote on a ban in August. If it passes, the Board of Supervisors will weigh in.

Jennifer Grafelman, general manager of the Animal Connection pet store and an enthusiastic rat breeder, says she hates puppy mills. But the proposal “has so easily snowballed into small animals and birds. … Where’s it going to end? Reptiles and fish could be next.”

But Rebecca Katz, head of San Francisco’s animal control department, says the prohibition could help solve one of her shelter’s biggest little problems: Hamsters, she said, are euthanized at a greater rate than any other animal. Banning their sale could curtail such deaths.
Humans on both sides of the pet-sales debate cloak their arguments in terms of what’s best for the critters involved. The pro-pet-store faction launched a group called Protect Our Precious Animals. But the issue really bubbles up at the nexus of lives and livelihoods.
Nationally, pets are a $40-billion to $45-billion-a-year business, and trade groups have gotten involved in the fight. The Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council has a plea on its website “urging those who support the right to have pets” to contact San Francisco officials “in opposition to this blatant anti-pet proposal.”

Even Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly has joined the fray. San Franciscans, he blustered recently, are “kooks!” “Insane!” The proposal is “fascistic!” “You’re basically taking away people’s freedoms for this kind of far-left vision of Nirvana!”

This tempest in a water bowl began in April, when Philip Gerrie, backyard beekeeper and member of the animal commission, suggested that San Francisco go the way of West Hollywood and South Lake Tahoe.

Although the city has only one store that regularly sells puppies and about half a dozen that sell any animals or birds, Gerrie said, “large pet stores were considering moving into the city that do sell puppies.” A ban on puppy sales, he thought, was “preemptive” and “doable.”
But at the April animal commission meeting, the discussion turned to other animals that are euthanized, Gerrie said, “and that’s when we started thinking about what we call the smalls — hamsters, rats, guinea pigs, chinchillas, mice, five little furry things sold in pet stores.”
The matter came up again in May and June when bird activist Elizabeth Young begged commission members to add her feathered friends to the list of protected species.

“Birds are extremely intelligent and emotional,” Young, a volunteer with Mickaboo Companion Bird Rescue, told the panel. “All kept birds, no matter what kind, suffer horribly when not taken care of well.”

In July, a couple dozen heated speakers from both sides piped up during the meeting, which stretched to four hours, “but it felt like five,” Gerrie said.

Rick French, owner of the Animal Company in the swank Noe Valley neighborhood, said that during the meeting he rattled off a list of obscure San Francisco laws he’d found on the Internet. It’s illegal here “to wipe your windshield with dirty underwear…you can add to those, pet stores without pets.”

“It didn’t go over too well,” said French, who sells pet supplies and birds and is a cofounder of Protect Our Precious Animals.

The actual proposal has yet to be written, Gerrie said, and he’s a little cagey about just how far he plans to push the prohibition.

But this is his thinking so far: Cats and dogs would be out because of puppy mills and kitten factories. Birds would be out because of “their sensitivity and inappropriateness as pets; they are wild animals.” Hamsters, mice, rats, chinchillas and guinea pigs would be out because of high euthanasia rates. Sales of bunnies and chicks were axed in San Francisco more than 30 years ago; you can thank Easter excesses and pint-sized attention spans for that.

That would pretty much leave the least cuddly creatures on pet store shelves — reptiles, amphibians, fish. The bottom line: If you want anything furry or feathered, go to a shelter or rescue group and adopt.

Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, said he is “not aware” of any other jurisdiction considering such a widespread ban. And he’s not sold on the San Francisco effort.

“I think the best thing would be to start with [banning] the sale of dogs and cats from these pet stores,” he said. With a broader ban, “I think you attract a set of additional opponents that sink an otherwise achievable goal.”

French, the longtime retailer, says he does not believe that banning animal sales would keep abandoned creatures out of harm’s way. What he does know is that it would imperil his business.

“If I don’t have a bird to sell,” said French, “I don’t sell a cage. I don’t sell bird toys. I don’t sell seed. But it’s about freedom of choice. If someone wants a bird, they’ll go to Berkeley. This will solve none of the problems the commission sees.”

maria.laganga@latimes.com – Source:  The Los Angeles Times Copyright © 2010,